Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lowe v. Diversified Consultants

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois


April 18, 2013

LOWE
v.
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS, INC.

Name of Assigned Judge Thomas M. Durkin Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge Young B. Kim

CASE TITLE

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Plaintiffs' motion to compel [56] is granted in part and denied in part for the reasons stated in open court. Defendant has until May 17, 2013, to comply with this order. A status hearing is scheduled for May 21, 2013, at 11:00 a.m. in courtroom 1019. Defendant's lead counsel may participate by phone. The discovery deadline of June 24, 2013, is stricken. The court urges Plaintiffs to retain an expert as soon as possible in order to perform the sampling the court ordered so that they may confer with Defendant on how best to sample the universe of the telephone numbers and the specific data the expert will require. As emphasized in open court, if the parties are able to agree to a better protocol for sampling, they are encouraged to do so.

O[ For further details see text below.] Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

For the reasons stated in open court, Plaintiffs' motion to compel Defendant to provide supplemental answers and documents in response to first (R. 56-3), second (R. 56-4) and third (R. 56-5) discovery requests is granted in part and denied in part:

First Discovery Requests

As to the first set, Plaintiff Carl Lowe moved to compel Defendant to supplement its responses to interrogatory numbers 2-5 and 7-12, request for production of documents numbers 1-6, 8-15 and 18-20, and request to admit numbers 7 and 8. The motion is granted in part and Defendant is ordered to supplement its answers and responses to the following: (1) interrogatories 3, 4, 7, and 9-11; and (2) request for production of documents numbers 1-6, 8-11, 14, 18 and 20.

Second Discovery Requests

As to the second, Plaintiffs Lowe and Jacob Durfee moved to compel Defendant to supplement its responses to interrogatory numbers 1 and 4-7, request for production of documents number 1, and request to admit numbers 8, 9, 20-25, 33 and 38. The motion is granted in part and Defendant is ordered to supplement its response to request for production of documents number 1.

Third Discovery Requests

As to the third set, Plaintiff Malinda De Jesus moved to compel Defendant to supplement its responses to interrogatory numbers 1-18, request for production of documents numbers 1-9, 11, 13, 14, and 19, and request to admit numbers 2-5.

Defendant is ordered to supplement its answers and responses to the following: (1) interrogatories 9, 11 and 14-17; and (2) request for production of documents numbers 13 and 14.

20130418

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.